Skip to main content

Table 2 Comparison of different phylogenetic hypotheses within Chamaeleonidae

From: Mitochondrial genomes of acrodont lizards: timing of gene rearrangements and phylogenetic and biogeographic implications

Tree

log L

difference

S.E.

p-KH1

p-SH2

Tree1

-182540.58

0

best

1.000 +

1.000 +

Tree2

-182640.62

100.04

23.7

0.000 -

0.001 -

Tree3

-182594.41

53.83

20.57

0.006 -

0.030 -

Tree4

-182637.55

96.97

29.64

0.000 -

0.002 -

Tree5

-182610.7

70.12

23.27

0.001 -

0.001 -

Tree6

-182575.68

35.1

16.09

0.017 -

0.137 +

  1. 1Probabilities by the Kishino-Hasegawa test
  2. 2Probabilities by the Shimodaira-Hasegawa test
  3. Values with a minus mean 'rejective' in the 5% level
  4. Tree1 : Bayesian tree from this study (Fig. 3)
  5. Tree2 : Topology consistent with Klaver and Böhme [5]
  6. Tree3 : Topology consistent with Raxworthy et al. [14]
  7. Tree4 : Topology consistent with Townsend and Larson [15]
  8. Tree5 : Bayesian tree reconstructed using a combined data set from Raxworthy et al. [14] and Townsend and Larson [15]
  9. Tree6 : Bayesian tree reconscructed with the mitogenomic data set by constraining the monophyly of Chamaeleo + Trioceros
  10. See Additional File 2 for Newick representations for each tree.